Sometimes in a long career in journalism – and Grubsheet has been a scribe for nigh on 40 years – one reads or hears an account of an event at which one was present that bears so little resemblance to reality that one’s jaw drops in utter astonishment. So it was with the account given to Radio Australia on Thursday by Dr Marc Edge –the Canadian-born head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific – of last month’s gathering in Fiji of the Pacific Islands News Association, the region’s preeminent media organisation. Dr Edge and Grubsheet were both among the delegates at Pacific Harbour on Fiji’s Coral Coast. But our recollections of what took place are so vastly at odds that I wonder if we were on the same planet, let alone at the same venue in the same country.

In an interview with the influential Pacific Beat, the quietly spoken and somewhat enigmatic Dr Edge – having said nothing especially critical at the conference itself – let fly. He accused the PINA organisers of stifling dissent at the 2012 media summit and rejected their claims that it was marked by unity between previously warring factions. There was, he said, a lot of disagreement behind the scenes. But the PINA organisers had managed to keep a lid on it because many of the dissenters either weren’t present in Fiji or were there trying to act as conciliators.

PINA delegates welcome Frank Bainimarama (photo: Pacnews-PINA)

The interview has triggered a furore, not least because Dr Edge’s comments have come out of left field a full month after the conference ended. There’s also a clear implication of misrepresentation on the part of those like Grubsheet who portrayed the 2012 summit as having healed many of the divisions of the past. I was genuinely gob-smacked to read Dr Edge pour scorn on my own account – and the accounts of others – that it was a genuinely peaceful affair, in sharp contrast to the previous gathering in Vanuatu three years ago when emotions were running so high that one delegate threatened to kill another. I’d cast it – based on comments by eminent Pacific journalists such as the Tongan publisher Kalafi Moala – as peace returning to the regional media after a period of tumult over how to respond to Frank Bainimarama’s 2006 Fiji coup.

But blow me down, if a month on, Marc Edge hits the airwaves blasting this interpretation as wrong and portraying PINA as a seething mass of discontent. Que? Where were the rest of us when all this disagreement was happening? It certainly wasn’t evident on the conference floor. Were a small coterie of malcontents plotting behind the scenes – so exclusive a club, perhaps, that no-one else noticed? On second thoughts, there was something strange going on. It’s just that we bumpkins didn’t realise it at the time.

Radio Australia's Bruce Hill (photo: ABC)

All week, we’d heard dire predictions of the Fiji summit ending in conflict. It was all going to happen in the final session on the final day. Where were these predictions coming from? Well, strangely enough, from precisely the same Radio Australia reporter – Bruce Hill – who has now given Marc Edge the biggest crack at revisionism in recent Pacific media history.

It’s all there in Hill’s broadcasts from the conference venue. “I’m told that things will come to a head on Friday in the final session”, he intoned across the airwaves. It didn’t happen. Indeed as the week progressed, Bruce Hill seemed to become increasingly exasperated that the PINA gathering was so, well, pacific. He complained at one point on air that it was “like attending a vicar’s tea party”. How frustrating when you’ve come all the way from Melbourne and the stoush you’ve promised your listeners -and your editors to justify all the expense – simply doesn’t materialise.

Going native but with the same western media mindset (Photo: Dr Edge's website)

The head of the Suva-based PINA secretariat, Matai Akauola, said he was “appalled” by Marc Edge’s comments and hoped they didn’t represent those of the USP. But in a barb also aimed at Bruce Hill, Akauola said: “ The approach to dialogue and to find common ground is the ‘Pacific Way’, which people like Professor Edge cannot understand. We may be doing things differently but we are not wrong”, he said. All of which plays into the ongoing debate about whether the pugnacious paradigm of the western media is appropriate for the practice of journalism in the island states and other developing countries. Because let’s face it. When you let someone like Bruce Hill loose on a function like PINA with even a whiff of division in the air, it’s a bit like putting a cat into a cage of canaries.

It’s pretty clear in the minds of conference organisers that Hill came to PINA spoiling for a fight, or at least to pursue his favoured narrative of a Pacific media umbrella in tatters by continuing division over Fiji. And when he didn’t get it at the conference itself, and his predictions of trouble amounted to nought, he simply bided his time until he could revive his narrative down the track. Enter Marc Edge – not an islander at all but a former working journalist and educator from Canada who’s been at USP for a mere eight months and had never attended a PINA conference before. Dr Edge was publicly silent for the entire week of the summit about the divisions he now claims were present all along. Then precisely a month later, he chooses to vent. And presto. All the elements coalesce of yet another bout of the “conflict journalism” Bruce Hill and others like him in the region’s metropolitan media markets have recently been accused of peddling.

from left - Dr Marc Edge, USP's Irene Manueli, Professor David Robie

That charge was made by Professor David Robie of the Auckland University of Technology – so esteemed that he’s described on Marc Edge’s own website as “probably the world’s foremost expert on Pacific media”. If that’s so, Dr Edge, then why so comprehensively trash David Robie’s own account of PINA for the AUT’s Pacific Scoop NZ website, in which he also trumpeted the “peace breaks out” line? What does it all mean? Well, in one fell swoop with his RA appearance, Dr Edge has set the scene for a “who’s right and who’s wrong” tussle between two of the region’s foremost journalism schools – Robie’s AUT and Edge’s USP. “Peace journalism” –as recently advocated by David Robie – versus “conflict journalism”, as seemingly favoured by Marc Edge, judging from his comments to Bruce Hill. Whatever course their own relationship takes, it’s a fair bet that young minds will be proxies in this struggle for months and years to come.

For my part, it’s certainly a comfort that “probably the world’s foremost expert on Pacific media” – Robie – corroborates my own recollection of what took place at PINA. I’d begun to think that my faculties had been distorted by the liquid refreshment on offer and the flattering attentions of journalistic ingenues. It was a peaceful affair – as we both faithfully reported in the first place – which axiomatically suggests that the main area of conflict may well have been in Marc Edge’s head.

Yes, there were people who stayed away from PINA because it was being held in Fiji. Yes, a breakaway organisation, PasiMA, was formed after the debacle in Vanuatu of mainly Polynesian delegates opposed to Fiji’s coup. Yes, one or two delegates at PINA – notably Terry Tavita, the pugnacious media advisor to the Samoan prime minister – made their displeasure felt. But for one of the region’s most prominent journalistic educators to seek to exacerbate that division when others are trying to build bridges speaks of a man who simply doesn’t grasp the subtleties and nuances of island relationships.

There’s a photograph from PINA that reflects this better than any written explanation. (Click on the adjacent photo for a larger version) It’s of two of Fiji’s biggest and most vocal Polynesian critics – Cook islanders Shona Pitt and Lisa Williams-Lahari – interacting with the “hated dictator”, Frank Bainimarama, on PINA’s opening night. Does it convey an image of conflict? Of loathing? On the contrary. It all looks pretty friendly and relaxed. As Matai Akauola puts it: “People like Marc Edge will not understand the Pacific. Maybe he would like to move the USP journalism school somewhere else”.

It’s curious, to say the least, that on the one occasion Dr Edge spoke publicly at PINA, he said nothing about the burning issues of conscience that he felt moved to raise on RA a month later. He was part of a panel charged with the task of reflecting on the threats and challenges posed to individual journalists of the changing media landscape and the “urgent need to reinforce moral values in journalism”. What did we get instead from the head of journalism at the region’s preeminent place of learning? A rambling, unscripted few minutes about how Dr Edge had wound up in Fiji after sailing there on his yacht and what his students were doing at USP.

Underwhelmed was the overwhelming sentiment in the room when those present might have expected to be enlightened, if not uplifted. Yet it’s nothing compared to the deflation many feel across the region this weekend when a Pacific media guru whose job it is to lift journalistic standards gets it so spectacularly, comprehensively wrong.

This article subsequently appeared in the Fiji Sun and Grubsheet was the subject of news stories on Pacific Scoop NZ and Pacific Islands Report, the daily news feed of the East West Centre in Honolulu.

51 Comments

On the contrary to your final sentence, I believe Prof Edge nailed it in his analysis.
I also believe the photo of me and Shona with the regime leader is misconstrued in your article and instead highlights the Pacific paradox that things are never ever as they appear.
Shona took up the offer to seated at the main table with the VIPs, an offer I declined. After the dinner, she asked me to be with her in the photo with Bainimarama taken for her personal use and at her request, a request I told her I was personally uncomfortable with because I thought it might be misconstrued. In typical Shona fasion she told me off and said I was being too precious about the issues, that the photo was for her personal collection, and that she could always put it up in the kitchen to throw darts at.
One thing thats missing in all this is the unique Pacific ability to disagree on some issues, like media freedom, and agree on others, like media solidarity and development. I talked two years ago at WPFD in Brisbane about the Pacific Media Freedom soup stirring up a factioning of media networks on one thing or another. The thing to realise is we are all in that soup, whether we like it or not. We bring different tastes and flavours to media development and futures, and need to understand that.

Thanks, Lisa, for this explanation. I think people will probably draw their own conclusions from the body language about your encounter with Frank Bainimarama. Yes, things aren’t always what they seem in the Pacific. All I can say is that the Fijian leader seems remarkably equable about your intention to turn him into a dart board and you don’t seem inclined to throw the first dart.

I personally don’t see anything wrong at all with either you or Shona wanting to be photographed with someone who is already a historic figure in the region. It doesn’t imply support for all or even any of his policies – just a normal and very human reaction to celebrity. It’s certainly a plausible explanation for those of your colleagues who might be crying “sell-out”. You’re right, we’re all in the same soup and you don’t have to apologise to anyone for standing up for media freedom.

It’s a figure of speech, Love, made popular in the 19th century as in “he’s gone native”.

From the Urban Dictionary: Used humorously, to go native means to take on some (or all) of the culture traits of the people around you, often said of people who go to foreign countries or far away cities. These traits may include dress, language, accent, etiquette, religion, etc.

Isn’t that exactly what Marc Edge was doing being photographed in a sulu? Loosen up, Love.

To the contrary, the photo depicts the situation exactly as it is, never mind the photographed trying to weasel out by giving lame-sounding excuses. It is typical of the ‘double talk’ and failure to ‘walk the talk’ we have witnessed before and are sick and tired of.

Terry, the kind of foul and racist language you habitually use indicates the kind of low class person you are.

Terry, your foul-mouthed insults are extremely tiresome and say much more about you than my legitimate use of a photograph to give the lie to any sense of crisis at PINA.

Perhaps you could explain how on earth the prime minister of Samoa could have possibly engaged you as his media advisor? Because to me, it’s one of life’s great mysteries. You continue to do your country, your prime minister and yourself no credit by your continued insults and crude boasting.

We all want to get on together in the region, not be lectured to by a swaggering viavialevu who evidently has as big a chip on his shoulder as the government which employs him.

get a grip mate..cry me a freaking river..you got caught for the little low life scum you are by publishing that photo..who you think you’re kidding?..besides, I don’t care about my job and how I’m perceived, I’m calling out your continuing pro-regime bs with that little twisted brain of yours and good people like Lisa (you trample on because they hold a different view) who’ve done more for Pacific media than you ever friggin did..that’s what good journos are suppose to do..comprende?

Ah, more insults. Go on, Terry, get it off your chest. Dear Reader, this is the guy who threatened to kill another delegate at the 2009 PINA Summit in Port Vila. Yes, the media advisor to the prime minister of Samoa.

Now he hides behind Lisa Williams-Lahari’s skirts – someone who innocently chose to pose with Frank Bainimarama – to attack me as a “low-life scum”. Take a look in the mirror, Terry. That’s it. Big head, big mouth, small brain.

I threatened to kill somebody?..ha!..more lies?..how low can you go?..more dumb feeble attempts to discredit us?..you should really work on that monkey on your shoulder..you weren’t even at port vila little boy..in fact, like marc edge, this was your first pina conference as i recall you said..

On The Edge, you’ll see that I identified this well known “dissenter” in the piece on Marc Edge so this is hardly new.

The events being referred to here took place in 2009, not in Fiji in 2012. In fact, Terry Tavita was as gentle as a lamb at the recent PINA conference, in stark contrast with his wild behaviour in 2009. So much so that he and I shared a friendly beer at Nausori Airport when we both flew out.

His attack on me here seems to be related to me publishing PINA’s photo of Lisa Williams-Lahari and Shona Pitt with Frank Bainimarama. My “low-life” act appears to be implying some sort of support for him by Lisa when I was merely using the photo to establish the fact that conflict was noticeably absent at Pacific Harbour for an anti-regime critic to be posing with the “hated dictator”.

So I’m sorry to demolish your thesis but there it is. Far more eminent people than me have given the same account, notably Professor Robie and PasiMA deputy chair Kalafi Moala. Nice try.

Actually having listened to Marc Edge’s interview and read the transcript he does not actually say there was much dissent at the conference. What he does seem to say is that there is dissent amongst the journalists of the Pacific.

I don’t know what you call yours and Terry’s exchange but I call it dissent. I believe that proves Dr Edge’s point.

On another note I feel your piece is jaw droppingly sensationalist. I could not believe how you reacted to a rather benign piece on Pacific Beat. I think it shows a certain insecurity about people going public with a contrary point of view.

No, On the Edge, my objection is to a revisionist account, being given a month later, that’s at odds with what actually happened at PINA from a journalist educator who said absolutely nothing at the time to anyone.

The reason Matai Akauola and others are “appalled’ is that only after the Radio Australia interview has Mark Edge sent him a letter with a set of detailed accusations about dissent being suppressed AT THE SUMMIT and many of the sessions being exercises in “propaganda”.

So again, the entire premise of your last posting is wrong. You are entitled to cast my article as ” jaw droppingly sensationalist” but, believe me, it’s nothing compared to the drama now being played out behind the scenes in Suva over this issue.

On the edge

Posted May 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I am sorry I do not see how it is revisionist. He goes to great lengths to say there was no dissent at the conference. He goes on to say just because there was no dissent at the conference does not mean there is no dissent.

I cannot see this “clear implication of misrepresentation” you talk about. You both say there was no or very little dissent at the conference. I am sure that in your words “Peace did break out” at the conference but it does not mean that it is a long lasting peace. It is just the Pacific Way.

You hold a media conference in a country which until 3 months ago had a censor in every news room. Those same censors were all at the conference as part of the Ministry of Information contingent. Do you honestly think that encourages openness amongst the Fijian journalists?

You yourself ask the following question “In the uncertain aftermath of the formal lifting of censorship, the average working journalist is still walking on eggshells, acutely conscious that it hasn’t taken much to be branded “anti-Fiji” in the past. Has overt censorship in Fiji merely been replaced by an insidious form of self-censorship?”

I tell you most of the journalists in Fiji would answer yes to that question. But did they say anything publicly at the conference. Of course they did not. They are dissenters but like almost everyone in Fiji they are too scared to be open dissenters.

On the edge

Posted May 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Please tell us the drama going on in Suva.
Have you called the army in to sort out DR Edge?
Is he going to find himself with his contract terminated just like the military did with that other USP dissenter Wadan Narsey?

I wouldn’t say dissention but it’s certainly a parting of ways..the Samoan media have turned their backs on PINA and now doing their own thing..it’s sad because many of them actually started PINA and spent a lot of time and money for many years making PINA the pre-eminent regional entity it became..people like kalafi, i fully support, are trying to salvage what’s left of PINA..because people and issues come and go, but PINA will remain..there’s also the important issue of media training, monitoring professional standards,etc that PINA is responsible for..but its response to the Fiji crisis is the single abject failure of PINA and has become the back breaker..PAsiMa (I’m not a member of) is moving on, they have projects lined up and money grants to report on..

On the Edge, there is a specific charge that PINA tried to stifle dissent at PINA. I certainly saw no evidence of that and neither did Professor David Robie – “the world’s greatest authority on the Pacific media”, on Dr Edge’s say so. So to give that account to Radio Australia a month on is, of course, revisionist.

Oh, so the dissenters are silent dissenters, by your own account. Then how can they be stifled by PINA if they don’t express that dissent? You keep avoiding this crucial part of the debate, the charge by Dr Edge of a wilful attempt to suppress dissent at the 2012 Summit.

Even Terry Tavita says he “wouldn’t call it dissention” (sic). So I don’t know why you persist with this line of argument? It’s nonsense, though I agree that local journalists are anxious about what they can and cannot say and reported this in my original PINA story.

As for your other cheap shot about me “calling in the army”: I have no idea what specific form the drama I referred to is taking beyond reports that both PINA and the Fiji Government intend to ask for clarification from the University of the South Pacific whether it supports Dr Edge’s comments. This is because he made certain “threats” about the School of Journalism withdrawing its support for PINA in correspondence to the secretariat. This is the source of considerable anger so, yes, there’s a drama.

I honestly don’t know if anyone is asking for Dr Edge’s dismissal. I certainly wouldn’t support that because my view is that he’s entitled to his views even if I disagree with them and I’d imagine he’d feel the same about me.

The following was submitted to the Fiji Sun for publication in tomorrow’s editions as a reply to Graham’s column of Sunday. As the column was reprinted from this blog, however, I feel it is appropriate to post the reply as a blog comment as well, which will also open it up to response by Graham and others. But first I must thank Graham for getting such a lively discussion going on such an important issue. This is like manna from heaven on the eve of World Press Freedom Day later this week, which we at USP Journalism have numerous events planned to celebrate.

Unfortunately, however, Graham was seriously mistaken on several important matters of fact in his column. I am sure he is familiar with C.P. Scott’s aphorism that “comment is free, but facts are sacred.” If he can’t get his facts straight, how seriously should we take his opinions? Of course, you can also point to his tactics, as some others have done. I think most readers well understand where Graham is coming from on this issue and others.

As an award-winning historian, I can assure you that even the most eminent of us disagree on what the facts mean, and history is continually being revised as new facts come to light. If you want to know exactly what I am teaching first-year journalism students at USP, you can read the Introduction to the textbook I have assigned for JN101 this semester for free online at http://www.journalism.org/node/72.

***

I’m disappointed that Graham Davis (“Edge of Reality,” Fiji Sun, 29 April) was “underwhelmed” by my panel presentation at the Pacific Islands News Association’s recent Media Summit at Pacific Harbour. In chronicling how disappointed he was, however, I feel that he seriously misrepresented what I said. There were some audio problems with the panel, however, so perhaps he didn’t hear me very well despite sitting in the front row. Panelists were given only 10 minutes each, as there were five of us and only an hour allocated, so I also had to rush through all the things I wanted to say. Maybe I went too fast for him, so perhaps I should go through them again.

I wanted to introduce myself to the delegates, most of whom I had not met, being a relative newcomer to Fiji. I mentioned that despite being from a land far, far away, I have some familiarity with the region because I had sailed through the South Pacific after leaving the newspaper business in Canada many years ago. I told of how I arrived in Tonga in 1996 while Taimi ’o Tonga publisher Kalafi Moala was imprisoned for exercising freedom of the press. My time in Tonga piqued my interest in such issues to the extent that I sailed back north the following year to enroll in doctoral studies in Journalism in the U.S. I feel it is thus fitting that I have returned to teach Journalism at the University of the South Pacific.

I also wanted to promote the Journalism programme at USP because we were somehow not included as a conference sponsor, while FNU logos were seemingly everywhere. I wanted to introduce our new radio station manger, Semi Francis, and to mention that Radio Pasifik is now back on the air in Suva at FM 89.4 after several years of silence. We hope to soon have an official launch, and to begin broadcasting in other Fiji markets and across the South Pacific via the Internet.

I had wanted to introduce my colleague Irene Manueli, who does such a great job of putting out our Wansolwara student newspaper, but she had to dash back to Suva for a class that morning. I held up the latest issue, however, and mentioned that I had brought a number of copies for delegates, which were quickly scooped up. I also announced that we hope to soon have the Wansolwara back online. It has been offline for several years. You will want to check out our issue this week, which will be included with you Fiji Sun, as we have a nice scoop on the ongoing Miss World Fiji saga. I urged delegates to send us their best and brightest students, as we are the regional Journalism programme. I also mentioned that we hope to soon offer introductory and advanced courses via distance learning.

I glanced at my watch to see that I had used fully half of my allotted time with preliminaries, so I got right to the subject at hand. It had been rather broadly defined on the programme as “political, religious, racial, ethnic, legal, drug related, climatic and health issues in a historic era when the media is buffeted by winds of change.” I said that I thought too little time had been set aside for discussion of such important issues. An inordinate number of sessions, on the other hand, had been devoted to trivial matters such as sports and to PINA’s seeming obsession with non-communicable diseases, which had been given two full hours that morning while our panel was originally scheduled for only 45 minutes. I said rather pointedly that there were more important issues for journalists to discuss than NCDs. While there had been some sessions on important issues such as climate change and corruption, there had been virtually no discussion of press freedom or other political issues that will largely determine how these other important issues are dealt with.

I said that I thought we needed more discussion in the Fiji media on political issues, which is the hallmark of a free press. I praised Graham’s recent column on race politics in Fiji (“Qarase stirs up trouble,” Fiji Sun, 14 March) and said that I thought we needed more such provocative political commentary. It might be painful and messy, I said, but it will be necessary – rather like lancing a boil — if Fiji is to get over its recent political trauma and return to democracy.

I then announced that USP Journalism had just been given the go-ahead to hold a two-day symposium in September on Media and Democracy in the South Pacific, at which we intend to explore these kinds of issues in depth. I invited delegates to attend and even participate, as we plan to include presentations by journalists and journalism students as well as by media scholars and political scientists. I got my vinaka vakalevu in at just on 10 minutes, so I was pleased I had packed so much into such a short time.

I thus don’t quite understand how Graham could write that I “said nothing especially critical at the conference itself.” It is true that I did not bring up my dissatisfactions at PINA’s conference-ending Annual General Meeting. That was because I was informed that USP did not have a vote there, being only an associate member, and as far as I could tell it would have been pointless to protest anything because no other dissenters were in attendance. Many of them, of course, had boycotted the entire conference. Some who had come to Pacific Harbour apparently realized that the deck had been stacked against them and simply chose not to attend the AGM.

I sat amazed as the voting delegates were asked to simply rubber stamp a list of resolutions that had been prepared behind closed doors by committees representing industry groups. Approval was obtained without much discussion. Those of us who are journalism educators and media critics had met before the AGM with the aim of forming our own industry group, which would give us a vote and thus a voice. Some doubted the usefulness of that, given PINA’s seeming resistance to discussing important journalism issues, but I would prefer to help reform PINA from the inside.

As for Graham’s contention that my remarks “have come out of left field a full month after the conference ended,” that is not true either. They have come in response to his recent column on the subject. (“Pacific Media at Peace after Pacific Harbour,” Fiji Sun, 25 April.) Bruce Hill of Radio Australia, who had been good enough to come and talk to my third-year International Journalism class after the PINA conference, was well aware of my dissatisfaction with how things had gone there. Thus when Graham attacked him as a trouble-maker in his column, Bruce called me to get my reaction. I reiterated that all was not lovey-dovey in Pacific media, nor in PINA, as Graham and some others would have people believe. I offered to go on the record with my dissenting opinion.

I have no problem with the way Bruce presented my interview, nor with the way he reported on the PINA conference, with which Graham took great issue. Bruce played the contentious interviews for my class, and I was impressed not only with his interviewing skills, but also with his even-handed reporting. He interviewed a PNG government official who made a fairly outrageous statement to the effect that news media should not report critically on government. An outraged Kalafi Moala, according to Bruce, practically insisted on responding with some strong comments of his own the next morning. Was Bruce stirring up trouble or manufacturing conflict? Hardly. He was doing good journalism. Bruce is a real pro. He doesn’t deserve Graham’s criticisms. That said, I know exactly what Graham means by the Australian media manufacturing conflict in Fiji. I have had my own views misrepresented on Radio Australia, but not by Bruce.

I also feel it was WAY over the top, not to mention fairly thin-skinned and defensive, for Graham to portray my account of the PINA conference as somehow implying “misrepresentation” on his part, or as “pouring scorn” on his account. Nor was I suggesting the PINA conference was a “seething mass of discontent.” And I certainly didn’t, as he claimed, “comprehensively trash” David Robie’s account.

What we have here is called a diversity of viewpoints, which is usually considered a virtue in journalism. People can choose for themselves which one they think is closest to the truth, or they can take them all with a grain of salt. Graham and I obviously have different perspectives. I am a journalism scholar and an outsider here, while he is a practitioner who enjoys a well-entrenched position as a government insider, judging by his sources. I’m also pretty sure we were talking to different people at the PINA conference. No doubt this was a much more peaceful affair than the last one in Vanuatu, but that doesn’t mean the wounds are healed and everyone is happy. I think many have given up on PINA and simply absented themselves, which is sad. I don’t want to do that. Not yet.

I and others feel strongly that PINA should be acting as an advocate for their member journalists, not working on behalf of sponsors to use their member journalists to advance a development agenda. It is undeniable that Fiji’s media are at a crossroads in 2012 with the lifting of the PER after almost three years of censorship. They are instead now subject to the provisions of the 2010 Media Decree, which has criminalized what were once journalism ethics. From what I can tell from talking to Fiji journalists, there is a tremendous climate of fear and uncertainty in advance of the first rulings from the new Media Authority. What do journalists need to know to stay out of jail and avoid being fined?

Then there’s the State Proceedings Amendment Decree 2012, which is supposed to replace parliamentary privilege by exempting government ministers from legal liability for defamation for any statements they make. It also exempts news media outlets from liability for publishing or broadcasting their defamatory statements. But if ministers have immunity and their political opponents don’t, it will have a chilling effect on government critics. How credible will the pronouncements of ministers be if they are not legally liable for making defamatory misstatements? Should the media thus be reporting their statements at all, especially if the other side is not allowed to speak freely? After all, that wouldn’t be balanced reporting as required by the Media Decree. It’s getting a bit ridiculous.

These all would have made useful topics for discussion at a conference of journalists in Fiji, but there was no mention of any of them at the PINA summit. They are the kinds of issues that we will be discussing at our Media and Democracy symposium in September, however. We will also be discussing them at our World Press Freedom Day events on campus this Thursday and Friday. Unlike PINA, we want to shine a light on these issues. They are the types of things we discuss with our students all the time. Some of them who attended the PINA conference, by the way, were also unimpressed with the lack of open discussion on these issues. Obviously they have been learning to think a little bit more critically.

I think he is the best journalism lecturer for USP because he taught his students what real journalists.He instilled confidence is us that even though there is no press freedom in Fiji we still could make it there someday.

He has stood by what he taught us and has proved it.That a journalist has the right to freedom of speech.

How long has the professor been at the USP and when did you graduate to become an “ex-Student”?? .Ok here is a simpler question, do you have a mind of your own and please reply with a simple correct statement that will actually,at the least, portray that you have graduated from the school of journalism.
Quite frankly I was afraid of these so called fans of edge.

What Prof Edge has observed about PINA is nothing new. It has a bit of a dodgy record, contrary to the perfect picture some like tavita are painting. Things seem to have gotten worse after the coup. Someone new to the region might not understand the full debilitating effect of non-communicable diseases in Fiji and the region, and can play down the problem. Media is duty-bound first to educate itself about it, and then educate people about it, although some western journos like to see themselves as tough and hard-bitten, will dismiss such a notion and as ‘boring’, soft, etc, etc . Perhaps non-communicable thingie was was overdone at PINA at sponsors’ behest. It woud not be the first time.

But underneath all this is the long-held wish and agenda to relocate PINA from Fiji or destroy it – this ambition is well and alive. Some faces at PINA Suva confirm this. Those new to the region can unwittingly play into this agenda, although it must be said those at the helm in PINA are also doing a good job discrediting organisation by, among other things, lack of accountability.

OMG enough with the smokescreening conspiracy theories. What faces at PINA wanted to destroy or relocate??? We were ALL there wanting a good positive, inclusive and media-centric outcome to the summit. I was excluded and silenced in some areas and just flowed with it and made my thoughts known in others….it was just a typi cal media organisation gathering trying its best to move forward. We’re all having a healthy discussion on how that did or didn’t happen. I didn’t see faces skulking around the place and as I’ve constantly said, there were elements of unity and elements of dissension in true media freedom soup fashion. The Pacific defies being black and white, labelled and packaged. One thing about the Pacific Way, it is the way of talanoa and constant airing of views. In that sense, no matter who is upsetting who, we are all upholding it via this forum. Onwards, lis

Lisa, you say you were “excluded and silenced in some areas” at the PINA summit. You could assist this debate immensely by detailing precisely what happened.

The charge from Marc Edge is that the PINA organisers “kept the lid on dissension”, in other words, wilfully acted to control it, to stifle it. Is this true and how did it happen?

You are greatly respected in Pacific media circles so your opinion counts. You are also admired for coming to Fiji when some might have expected you to boycott the proceedings.

I personally think it was great that you were willing to meet Frank Bainimarama because it’s precisely about what you’ve enunciated – keeping the lines of communication open. My use of the photo of you and the Fijian leader together wasn’t the cheap shot Terry Tafita has accused me of making. It was to underline the fact that PINA 2012 was peaceful, with an accent on healing the rifts of the past.

However uncomfortable it might have been, you and people like Kalafi Moala are on the right side of history. Why? Because I believe Fiji will be a democracy again and a better democracy with equal opportunity for all its citizens. And the media is a vital part of that process.

Those of your colleagues who boycotted PINA as a matter of principle might have a warm inner glow and a pat on the back from Fiji’s opponents. But you came and listened, engaged, and built relationships for the future. I also admire Terry Tafita for being present for the same reasons, however odd that might sound, given our harsh exchanges here.

Why did I get involved with all this in the first place? Because Fiji is a society in transition and needs the understanding and support of the regional media. I don’t think Marc Edge’s attack on the PINA leadership was appropriate, nor do I think leaving the organisation is appropriate, as he evidently intends the USP to do. It’s time to repair the wounds, not inflict more cuts, and preserve a united Pacific media organisation, not a series of breakaway groups.

If USP leaves PINA and joins PasiMA, what does it achieve? A continuation of the division of the Pacific media along Melanesian/Polynesian lines. How does that help any working journalist, whether they’re in Moresby, Suva, Apia or anywhere else? The USP School of Journalism should be at the forefront of building Pacific unity just like the university itself, not an agent for division and fragmentation.

Professor Edge is a recent arrival. He still has some way to go when it comes to understanding Fiji and the situation in the country today, and the deft handling that is needed. Media freedom needs to be looked at in the broader context in relation to Fiji. Pushing and demanding media freedom Canadian style can have adverse repercussions and opposite effects, such as greater restrictions at this delicate, transitionary moment. That’s the reality of fiji today. Marc Edge will simply be shipped home. We will be left with the consequences.

It is in the western media’s DNA to hype and blow up trivial conflicts. The manner in which the PINA dispute was portrayed by Bruce Hill based on Marc Edge interview was typical. they do it without realising it. perhaps there was some conflict. question is, ‘so what?’. how big a deal really was it? from what I can gather from the discussions, conflict is also in PINA DNA. in other words, what’s new?

we need better than just knee-jerk reactions from both media educators and practioners. People who choose to make public comments about fiji need to be a bit more circumspect.

All we ever hear about is media freedom. My question is: when are our media gurus going to talk about media responsibility? there is a lot of talk about media freedom, but I wonder how much effort is out into promoting responsibility. anyone have any figures about how much training is available, who is getting training, who is flying to all the meetings and conferences; is it the same people who have cornered the donor funds or are the young ones getting a break and needed training? any research on that? how much are media companies spending on training and paying their reporters? this issue is directly linked to media freedom, I would think. perhaps something to talk and research? it will be more useful than one-dimensional, simplistic view and approach to media freedom.

On his recent visit to Fiji, a bumbling Bob Carr planted in the head of the regime the idea of reserved seats for the military in Fiji’s upcoming elections. Will a naive Marc Edge unwittingly give military an excuse to reverse recent relaxations of media restrictions, or worse, delay elections? Military is always looking for an excuse. Bob Carr and Marc Edge might just be their men. A first world hero complex towards the third world coupled with a cowboy/sheriff attitude can do more harm than good in Fiji.

Who is this Marc Edge, and how fit is he to teach journalism at USP given his typical western cavalier attitude and patronising comments, and one dimensional, know-it-all mindset?

Typical westerner who likes to talk rather than learn and listen first. How long has he been in Fiji, and how well does he know about the situation there to be making all authoritative comments? Are we seeing another one of our overnight experts here? We have heard of parachute journalists. is this a parachute academic?

Somebody at USP better pull him in a bit before he does more damage during what is a delicate period for Fiji.

Well to be fair. This is what the current journalese students are saying on facebook website.

Vee Tamani Kuruvoli Can’t get over the 2nd last para, coz that was something we were also talking about there…lol
April 28 at 8:22pm · Like · 1

Ziko Raj is there any truth to this?
April 28 at 8:26pm · Like

Vee Tamani Kuruvoli OK…are you asking about the article as as whole or the bit i commented on?
April 28 at 8:28pm · Like

Ziko Raj the whole thing
April 28 at 8:30pm · Like

Vee Tamani Kuruvoli Have you read or heard Mark’s interview with Bruce Hill?
April 28 at 8:37pm · Like

Ziko Raj It’s curious, to say the least, that on the one occasion Dr Edge spoke publicly at PINA, he said nothing about the burning issues of conscience that he felt moved to raise on RA a month later. He was part of a panel charged with the task of reflecting on the threats and challenges posed to individual journalists of the changing media landscape and the “urgent need to reinforce moral values in journalism”. What did we get instead from the head of journalism at the region’s preeminent place of learning? A rambling, unscripted few minutes about how Dr Edge had wound up in Fiji after sailing there on his yacht and what his students were doing at USP.
April 28 at 8:52pm · Like · 2

Arnold Chanel It’s like a bunch of old men trying to determine who has the biggest penis.
April 29 at 12:14am · Like · 2

Tuma Niumataiwalu ‎Ziko Raj you’re exactly right. During the panel, he didn’t seem to have anything prepared and talked nothing of the changing media landscape. Just the same ol’ tale of coming to the islands on that iistoopid yacht and his fateful bus ride along the seawall to USP.
April 29 at 2:22am · Like · 6

Princess Maly pls Arnold Chanel !!!!!
April 29 at 2:35am · Like

Princess Maly Anyway …. this is our HOD … i truly believe now that m in the wrong program …. I have his audio presentation at the PMS if u wanna listen to it ! he didn’t even know … how many “REGIONAL STUDENTS” he has in his program … But we all know about his YACHT and so and so ….
April 29 at 2:39am · Like · 3

Princess Maly u guys who had passed JN103 last semester should know if it’s ethical or not !!!
April 29 at 2:41am · Like · 1
Princess Maly Isa and HOPEFULLY we opening our eyes today and realize what’s going on with the preparation of the World Press Media Freedom and the misunderstanding about JSA ! …. hehehehehe … it’s all about … it’s all about ……
April 29 at 2:47am · Like

Tuma Niumataiwalu Well, not Ziko Raj but Graham Davis. Pratish just cut and pasted… typical.
April 29 at 3:30am · Like · 2

Glen Vavaitamana LOL @ cut and paste
April 29 at 6:28am · Like

Arnold Chanel Bob Hooper is the best lecturer.
April 29 at 9:40am · Like · 1

Princess Maly I am TOTALLY AGREE with you Arnold Chanel …
April 29 at 10:56am · Like

Ziko Raj i cut and pasted for reference to Vee Tamani Kuruvoli(2nd last paragraph). But seriously this is slack saraga. and Princess Maly, bring the audio.
April 29 at 2:18pm · Like · 2

Vee Tamani Kuruvoli mana i had he DvD for that session with me last week, and i just returned it to Don Pollock on Friday, had i known this was going to come up i would have kept it for you to watch; the 2nd last para bit…lol
April 29 at 2:35pm · Like · 1

Vee Tamani Kuruvoli ‎*the DvD*
April 29 at 2:35pm · Like · 1

Princess Maly Yeah I got a copy of this DVD !
April 29 at 3:14pm · Like · 2

Vee Tamani Kuruvoli lol..there Ziko Raj you can see it for yourself…lol
April 29 at 3:16pm · Like · 1

Aliti Verevou all this hate to marc?… love he hasnt even been here a year…give him some space….now ask nash how many students in JSA?….ask kedrayate how many lecturers under her care?….this people have so much to think about, that quite frankly, knowing you personally, is not there business. Ask the management lecturer how many in his class?? they cant tell you. In our small little world we expect everyone, including our lecturers to know our names and numbers when really, you have to stand out to be known.
April 30 at 1:29pm · Like · 2

In my opinion, using our banter in a ‘closed’ group to prove your point, exjournalismstudent, is unacceptable. It’s our own thoughts on the matter and shared amongst colleagues and friends, not for dissemination to the public. Instead of copying and pasting, were you unable to type out a proper post at all? That is all.

what were you thinking when you posted this? this is the students view on what is going on with the school head and Hill. there was no need to drag any of us to the discussion here! if we the students want we could take our qualms to Dr. Edge. thanks to you a student has been victimised! do you have any idea of the repercussion of your action???

“Student”, I fully understand your concerns about this but unfortunately it seems the horse has bolted. I do not screen comments on this site in advance like Coup 4.5 or Crosbie Walsh and this is what can happened. It’s yet another painful lesson for all concerned that conversations on Facebook are not private. They go to “friends” and “friends” of “friends” who may not be friends at all.

You say that someone is being victimised because of what they said on this transplanted Facebook posting. If this is the case, it ought to be brought to the attention of the USP Vice Chancellor or his deputy. Any victimisation under the circumstances is totally unwarranted and represents an abuse of process. If you want me to take this further, you or any of your fellow students can contact me in confidence at grahamdavis@grubstreet.com.au

As a former USP student I am concerned that someone would post the students conversation on this website which evidently seems to take a shot at Dr Edge, their lecturer every chance it gets painting a picture that they too are in on the “Get Dr Edge” boat. If they have any qualms against their lecturer then there are procedures to follow. I agree with Graham Davies that they should go talk to their VC about it but I DO NOT agree with his other suggestion that they email him about their concerns (more ammo for his gun is all I can think of if one of the students does email him) Go to the VC and Student body reps, they will know what to do.

Exjournostudent2, very sensible. Of course we wouldn’t want any journalism student providing a journalist with information about a case of injustice at USP. Let’s just keep it under wraps and not give him “ammunition for his gun”.

Two things come to mind with this posting of yours – that you are not a journalist and have never been trained as one. Or that the journalism course at USP is turning out spin merchants whose raison d’etre isn’t disclosure but suppression.

You speak of me as if I’m some sort of low-life assassin. I am not trawling for further information. I provided my email in case someone needs external assistance against an establishment that has already shown a penchant for cover-up, as in the “we’re friends” spin over Dr Edge and PINA.

I repeat. If any student is victimised, they should go to the VC or his deputy. But if that victimisation continues, they can come to me and I will personally take it to the office of Filipe Bole, Fiji’s Minister for Education.

Thanks for making me look like someone who encourages people to “keep things under wrap” GD. Rich coming from you who has a buddy in Bainimarma – The King Of “Keeping Things Under Wrap”. Why dont you encourage his possies to come out with the truth instead of encouraging USP students to voice their “victimisation”. What I was merely stating is there are procedures to follow! Take it to the VC and he will be the one to deal with it. If nothing is being done about it then they can take it to the media.

I believe that PINA should concentrate on improving the ailing sugar industry because of the massive potential it has for bringing in revenue to Fiji. The sugar industry has been hit very hard over the past decade mainly because of leases expiring. I think both Marc and Graham have valid points. Marc is correct because he stated that Pina isn’t doing enough and certainly Pina is not because I see no effort by them to help the sugar or copra industry, Graham is right in saying that Marc shouldn’t have gone to radio australia. I mean Australians eat kangaroos why would anyone take them seriously?

Facebook comments are not private, they’re there for every man and his dog to access. The atmosphere among us right now in the USP newsroom is thick with tension after that ‘exstudent’ posted our comments here. Yes, it is a lesson for us but we are feeling betrayed because the journalism program is pretty tight knit because we’re a small program (some would say elite). But in my opinion it’s a good thing it happened to show journalism students that Facebook is not sacrosanct even for journalists and if your views/comments are called into question be READY TO DEFEND IT to the death (a bit dramatic). Tough love I think is key here.

As journalism students it is our right to question, comment and write about something that is so close to home in this case (the office outside our newsroom). One of the student that was commenting on the issue was side balled by Marc yesterday much to my disgust. We are currently having our Journalism Students Association voting and whoever the new executives are they have their hands full because in my opinion they will be the body to tackle this issue.

I for one am not happy with Marc Edge’s treatment of a fellow journalism student and to be honest I’ve lost a lot of respect for him over his outburst yesterday.

Ah “exstudentjourno2”, thanks for confirming my original suspicion. Your gratuitous attack on me shows that your motivation for trying to shut this down is entirely political. My motivation was to protect current USP journalism students from intimidation.

Hello there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this site before but after checking through some of the post I realized it’s new to me.
Anyways, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!

I read a lot of interesting articles here. Probably you spend a
lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of work, there is an online tool that creates unique, SEO
friendly articles in minutes, just search in google
– k2seotips unlimited content

FOLLOW GRUBSHEET ON FACEBOOK

REGISTER FOR EMAIL UPDATES

ABOUT GRUBSHEET

Grubsheet Feejee is the blogsite of Graham Davis, a dual Fijian-Australian national working as a media and communications specialist in both countries and in other parts of the Asia Pacific.

Graham has had a four decade-long career in the mainstream media in Britain, Australia and Fiji. He has reported for the BBC, ABC, SBS and the Nine and Seven Networks and has written for a range of newspapers and magazines in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. His multiple awards include Walkley and Logie Awards in Australia and a New York Festivals Medal in the United States.

More recently, Graham has been a consultant to the GeoPolitical Solutions division of the global communications company, Qorvis-MSLGROUP, which represents a range of sovereign clients around the world. Part of his brief is to assist the Fijian Government with its program to introduce the first genuine democracy in the nation’s history in 2014.

Graham is broadly supportive of the Bainimarama Government's reform agenda but invites comments from people of all political persuasions. Please don't label your return volley "anonymous". Give yourself a name or pseudonym so that readers can track your progress over time.

Many of these postings have appeared in mainstream newspapers such as The Australian and the Fiji Sun – where Graham has been a columnist - and on other websites, including newmatilda.com and Pacific Scoop NZ.

Feejee is the original name for Fiji - a derivative of the indigenous Viti and the Tongan Fisi - and was widely used until the late 19th century.